Business Ethics Corporate Social Responsibility Assignment

Business Ethics Corporate Social Responsibility - appellative ExampleTheir importance is hierarchical as explained above. That is, from top to bottom. 2. The potential costs of such an investment is that a lot of money will be pumped into carrying out research that is related to bustment of medicament that can be used to treat the river blindness disease. The revenue likely to be generated from the sale of this drug is likely to be lower than the money invested. However, the benefit of such investment is that millions of lives would be saved. This would help the federation to create depose among different stakeholders. In the long run, this drug is likely to generate profits when batch realise its effectiveness. 3. Indeed Merck could justify this investment given that their operations are guided by their time value system which posits to the effect that medicine is for people non for profits. It is important for Merck to convince the shareholders that profits can be reaped fr om the sale of the drug in the long run after people have first gained trust in the new drug. In order to make such a decision, it is imperative for Merck to show some other shareholders that the wellness of the targeted people is more important than the high societys profit oriented goals. 4. ... These employees value the sprightliness of people hence they would not support action that jeopardises the live of the targeted people. If the decision to develop the drug is made, then(prenominal) employee loyalty is likely to decline since they would also have a guilty conscience that they are interchange a drug that is not safe to people. 5. If the decision to develop the drug is made, there is likely to develop media hype that is likely to tarnish the image of the federation. There would be a public outcry that the company that is hypothetical to be saving the interests of the people is now putting its profit oriented goals ahead of the health and safety concerns of the targeted people. The company is likely to lose its credibility since it would be jeopardizing the lives of the targeted people. As aptly stated by its value system, the company should not prioritise its profit oriented goals ahead of the interests of the people who are supposed to benefit from the drug offered. On the other hand, if a decision not to develop the drug is made, the company is likely to gain the trust of people since it would have proved that it is oriented towards the needs of the stakeholders. Indeed, there tycoon be a public outcry from some sections of the society but this decision is justifiable since it does not aggravate the situation. A lasting solution is needed to solve the problem at hand not decisions that are likely to impact negatively on the targeted people. 6. Merck had an ethical obligation in as utmost as the development of the drug was concerned. First foremost, it is Mercks responsibility to establish the impact of the drug on the targeted people. Even if the drug had a small